SPIESEL v. ROOS - 385 U.S. 16 (1966)


U.S. Supreme Court

SPIESEL v. ROOS, 385 U.S. 16 (1966)

385 U.S. 16

SPIESEL v. ROOS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 390, Misc.
Decided October 10, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Appellant pro se.

Anthony L. Schiavetti for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.


BRADFORD v. POSTEL, <a href="/cases/federal/us/385/16/case.html">385 U.S. 16</a> (1966) 385 U.S. 16 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BRADFORD v. POSTEL, 385 U.S. 16 (1966)

385 U.S. 16

BRADFORD v. POSTEL, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 402, Misc.
Decided October 10, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Appellant pro se.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 385 U.S. 16, 17



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.